The Boeing Company v. Tenenbaum Capital Partners, LLC

Filing 45

ORDER-re: Report and Recommendation (Case No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP, doc# 285; Case No. 2:16-mc-01216-RDP, doc#43). The court hereby ADOPTS the Report and ACCEPTS the Recommendations of the Special Master. It is ORDERED that Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC's Motion for Sanctions and Cost Sharing is DENIED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/22/2016. (AVC)

Download PDF
FILED 2016 Nov-22 PM 03:50 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, ) INC., ALABAMA AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. – BIRMINGHAM, AND ) ) PEMCO AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING ) SERVICES, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) THE BOEING COMPANY, ) BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, ) INC. AND BOEING AEROSPACE ) SUPPORT CENTER, ) ) Defendants. ) THE BOEING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TENENBAUM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Case No.: 2:16-mc-01216-RDP ORDER On October 17, 2016, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Case No. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP, Doc. # 285; Case No. 2:16-mc-01216-RDP, Doc. # 43) containing the recommendation that Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC’s “Motion for Sanctions and Cost Sharing” (Case No. 2:16-mc-01216-RDP, Doc. # 8) be denied. No objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation. After careful consideration of the record in this case and the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the Reports of the Special Master. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Special Master. It is therefore ORDERED that Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC’s “Motion for Sanctions and Cost Sharing” is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this November 22, 2016. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?